I got to the point where Dagny crashed landed in the anarcho-capitalist utopia before I had to put Atlas Shrugged down. Rand's opinion of those who support social safety nets is a bit overdone. Government should be the solution of last resort but in some cases the last resort is the only option. Like many conservatives, I bet the Congressman's view of Rand is privately more tempered with pragmatism. Hypocrisy in politics, however, isn't new. Jefferson was a public fiscal conservative but he purchased the Midwest for an unbelievable amount of money which was probably his single greatest achievement as President. Whether or not Mr. Ryan's rhetoric contradicts his actions is a debate I don't really care about. The fact that between social security and medicare our government is looking at 50 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities gives credit to any voice in support of overhauling these programs regardless of their political tone.

Ryan's proposed overhaul of Medicare is to make it substantially less efficient, and then to defund it. And all the while, the Democrats have a very reasonable plan, with the exact same spending limit (!), to cut Medicare based on actual reform rather than wishful deus ex machina thinking.

Oh if the Republicans gain power, the "credit" will be all ours, I can assure you. In all senses of the term.

Democrats are tax and spend. Republicans are spend and spend (or borrow and spend if you prefer). The problem is the whole balance of power of vested interests are what got us into the current mess and the only chance of a way out will happen when they are disrupted.

First, you make a point of voting for the people who have realistic, sensible policy proposals that are structured in the larger public interest. Obama's recent budget proposal, which in the long term has some modest tax increases, Medicare cuts and defense cuts, looks like a good start there. Other good things might include immediate fiscal stimulus, a carbon cap and trade system, and comprehensive immigration reform.

Second, you vote against the people whose ideas are bad, especially if they appear to blatantly serve special interests. Ryan's plan to slash Medicare and Medicaid while preserving bloated military funding and cutting taxes primarily for the very wealthy (blowing up the deficit in the foreseeable future in the process) looks to be one of those very bad ideas.

Third, be loud about doing both of these things, telling as many people as possible why, and generally working to build a more informed electorate, so others can also reject special interests and generally bad ideas.

Unfunded liabilities in these cases are liabilities which are not yet due to be funded. At that time, if it happens, they will become unfunded. Right now, it would be more accurate to call them projected liabilities, possible liabilities, or debted liabilities, for example.

Unfunded liabilities in these cases are liabilities which are not yet due to be funded. At that time, if it happens, they will become unfunded. Right now, it would be more accurate to call them projected liabilities, possible liabilities, or debted liabilities, for example.

You wonder, how special interests can be disrupted?
.
Why, by violent socialist revolution, of course. Ask presidential buddy Bill Ayers and his missus. They're influential educators now, so kids in state schools are receiving exactly this wisdom. It's a pity you can't enroll once again now, you wouldn't ask questions that naive.

Proof of what? That Sunjait cannot enroll into secondary education establishment now? Ask him, he'll confirm.
.
That Bill Ayers is a presidential buddy? Ask Bill, or O'Bambi, or Google, you'll be left in no doubt.
.
That Ayers and missus are violent commie revolutionists is proved in the court of law, and the adjective "former" is as applicable to them as, say, the label of "former KGB hack" to Putin.
.
That they are unrepentant communists and terrorists is proven in every Bill Ayers' public utterance since Uncle Sam made a huge mistake to release him from the slammer. Bad thing, there was no Gitmo then...

The problem is both parties is my view. We have the batshit crazy party and the inert party. The issue is the two of them are so evenly balanced out and so dominate political discourse that they prevent any other options and their black n white view on things.

People are stuck voting for the evil of two lessers in a country that has more options in tooth paste than political representation. A few decades ago the rationalization being the two party system ensures responsible politics.

This is why the voting process needs an upgrade, where people can precisely make clear where politicians stand in their preference,a no vote for failed situations, and a quorum requirement to force the vote to a minimum standard of representation. Without the last bit, you don't remove the incentive to disenchant the bulk of the voting population so your partisans can sway the election.

Here are some things that are bad for the grandkiddies relative to everyone else:

Giving massive permanent tax cuts to present earners that blow up the deficit and debt.

Slashing Medicaid, which funds the health care for many of the nation's children and pays for the very births of about a third of them.

Slashing funding for education, from federal K-12 support up to Pell grants.

Blocking any and all attempts at fiscal or monetary stimulus, which leaves millions of parents unemployed or underemployed and children growing up in more stressful, more unstable and less affluent households.

Those are things Republicans support, which is all terrible for the grandkiddies. So if your really, honestly care about them, vote Democrat.

I already did vote Dem last time around. The candidate didn't keep his promises. Imagine that.

The less affluent, more unstable households you cite are gonna come whether you want them or not. That is the legacy of the last 50 years.
I don't believe the Republicans support that sort of thing, I think they just see the impact coming. Time for a change.

Well, health care reform was one of the promises. Do you think the GOP will be able to deliver on Dem promises not kept, like shutting down Gitmo or withdrawing from Afghanistan quickly? At least we quit torturing people, but do you think the GOP will work on actively repealing the more odious parts of the Patriot Act?

Republicans propose to destroy the economy (which absolutely does increase unemployment and thus the instability and other socio-economic problems in childrens lives) based on some idiotic anti-government austerity agenda, and also to significantly damage the nation's health care and education systems to fund still further tax cuts, which mostly go to the very wealth.

That's the change you're proposing, and no, it's not time for that. Something that unwise people often do is look at a bad situation and assume that it can't be worse, but it certainly can.

As much as the Dems suck, the are the least worse option. Barely. Remember compassionate conservatism, and I'm the Decider? Remember deficits don't count? Remember Star Wars and the Afghan freedom fighters, or promissing to back up the Kurdish revolt in Iraq? Remember arms for hostages?

Welfare was reformed. And here we are 10 years on, and lo, the situation is worse when you count in all the wailing and writhing on the ground. Those captains of the universe are still hoovering up every dollar of QE, and being paid to do it. You can bet when it comes time to tighten, they'll be paid for that too.

Do you really think most of the people the Democrats want to give handouts to don't have a similar viewpoint?

"I got yours, screw you, buddy."

I grew up around poor trailer trash in Alabama. The feelings of entitlement among the poor are almost unfathomable to me. When I was young many of my friends actually thought that people just got money from the mailman every month.

That might end if every public school had the children cleaning the place along with doing their school work... if they complete their tasks they get their lunch. If not, they go hungry. Any hunter gatherer kid grows up with this reality. It would do a world of good if we made the point at the age of 5.

This place is starting to read like the Newsvine comment boards over at NBC, with all the partisan insults and ridiculous accusations.
After all the ranting, there still remains the out of control entitlements. There has to be an acknowledgement from all parties that our fiscal house must be put in order, or financial ruination will result.
Though I believe Ryan goes a bit too far, at least he is calling for the tough choices that have to be made.
That is more than I can say for Obama.

That's just factually incorrect scyllaisarock. Both Obama and Paul Ryan's major budget proposals include limiting Medicare growth to an identical GDP+0.5%.

The major difference is that Obama actually specifies how this might be done, primarily through the use of reduced and altered hospital reimbursements schedules driven by the IPAB, which is more than I can say for Ryan, because his relies on a market-based deus ex machina to make cuts happen.

You can't achieve fiscal stability by reducing the amount Medicare gets, then shifting the money stolen to anther program, namely Obamacare. Your still in the hole.
The money being SPENT has to be eliminated, not just shifted around.

Yada, Yada, I think we both know Medicare needs to be cut. Who would really do that is the true question.

The Republican party prodded by the Tea Party will make reductions in total expenditures, you can be sure of that.
Obama on the other hand seems to answer to no one but himself. I have seen his fiscal and social agenda in action over the last 3.5 yrs. No thanks.

So basically your comment above is that it's all so partisan, and if everyone would just agree with these essential Republican talking points about how "entitlements" are the problem, then both Democrats and Republicans could be in agreement, by just agreeing with the Republicans.
And you end with a slam at Obama, presumably just to show some more of how bipartisanship works.
How about everyone agreeing that the Bush tax cuts for the richest among us are what needs to be addressed instead? How about the position that gutting the middle class even further, when we've already created a two-tiered society not seen since the early part of the 20th century, if even then, is the wrong way to go?
Instead we get the Economist publishing a right wing conservative from the Cato institute (I finally looked up who "WW" is, no wonder) and then comments like your plea that everyone refusing to just agree that the conservative view is right is the cause of all of our troubles.
How about the Economist balancing out this extreme right wing view with an extreme left wing view, like oh say Noam Chomksy? Yes, I realize it's not going to happen.
One extreme is okay, the other not so much. Such as it always was.

Who would really cut Medicare? The Democrats already have, with ACA, which is why in the out years it projects out to be significantly budget positive.

As for who will realistically cut it in the future, that depends in large part on the voters. But I can say that the Democrats reform based cuts to Medicare are a helluva lot more plausible than Ryan's voucher based plan, which essentially breaks the system and leaves it in pieces. How realistic do you honestly think it is that seniors will go along with that?

You can find the deus ex machina at any conservative function when the conversation goes to anything involving government vs free market. In their world, the free market solves every problem ... somehow.

Interesting isn't it how the Red Center of the nation is whining for its agricultural bill (read wellfare)? The drought is crushing them, but instead of showing their robust virile independence they're crying for their farm aid.

let us put on our thinking (not regurgitating) caps for a second.
the koch brothers, who oppose everything they don't like are trust fund babies. they never earned a single penny in their lives, it was all daddy's money. and just how did daddy earn his money? by selling oil technology to stalin during the cold war, when the ussr was the enemy of the usa and trade with the enemy was forbidden. so given that their claim to wealth is through illegal means, they should be seen as an embarrasment to america.
the bush family are also trust fund babies. prescott bush (grand-daddy of dubya) made his money by selling armaments to hitler when germany was the enemy and trade with the enemy was forbidden.. hence they should be the last to speak of 'do for self'
romney is also a trust fund baby. his daddy had money, and he (romney) rode on the back of daddy. same can be said of trump, and many other 'millionaire' republicans who espouse this 'do for self' doctrine. truth is, had it not been for their daddy and mommy, they probably would have wound up some desolate meth head on the streets.
thus, putting aside what others (i.e. philosophers, writers, movies, etc) have 'told' us to 'think'.. let us use some simple common sense.
the majority of people in this country (and world) are not trust fund babies. the majority are not born into wealth. for the majority of people, work and diligence is the key to success. some start from way behind, and surviving is merely a godsend. given that scenario, what should the role of government be? better yet, let us assume there is NO government, and you have a society with a few trust fund babies and a bunch of struggling people. it is quite obvious that the strugglers will waste no time extracting their survival from the trust fund babies.
hence, to avoid anarchy, what role should government play? from my perspective, government should be the great equalizer. now, i know some regurgitators will call me a socialist. but in a socialist state, government is the great employer, and in some cases, government assigns your future. what i imply however, is that government should create opportunities for the strugglers to rise to the top. these opportunities may be job opportunities (funding small business), educational opportunities (student grants -- not loans, and scholarships), innovation opportunities (research grants). now, the trust fund babies, given that they never had to earn anything in their lives, suffer from insecurities. these insecurities stem from the fact that deep down, they know that if forced to compete, they would probably fall short. hence it is in their favor to keep the tables tilted to their benefit. problem with this scenario is that the status quo becomes normal, and when that happens (as i've seen in corporate america) progress is stymied. the great advancements come from innovation. when someone feels comfortable they are not compelled to innovate; hence the trust fund babies would never be the leaders of innovation.
now, to the elderly, the poor, the sick. what should we do with them? it would probably be easier to simply round up all the old people and euthanize them? or put all the poor people in concenteration camps and surround such camps with electric fence. i am quite sure that in their quiet circles these are things the trust fund babies talk about. but what if it was your mom, or dad? what if you were the poor person. most poor people are born into poverty, they do not wake up one day and say "you know what, i've always wanted to be poor, so i will become poor". most poor people lack opportunities to escape poverty, and a lot have made mistakes that mark them for life (felonies). hence, why not give those who so desire, an opportunity to rise above poverty. in the long run, it saves a hell of a lot more money to minimize poverty than to have to deal with the sociological fallout from poverty. but trust fund babies can not empathize. after all, they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth, and think that those that don't live in luxury must have dropped their silver spoon along the road somewhere.
we waste so much money on defense. not on preparedness, but on the defense contractors who are constantly over-budget and behind schedule. it would probably cost less than 25% of the current defense budget to maintain the present state of military readiness. yet you don't hear these trust fund babies speak of cutting defense spending, why?
anyway, simple reasoning and logic would answer a lot of these questions. i would give much more credence to someone who was born poor and worked their way to millions, talking of "no need for the welfare state", than someone who rode off daddy's coat-tails talking the same thing. and on the topic of welfare state, why not eliminate all the corporate welfare, that would be one great place to start.

The vast majority of poor people are useless. They were never willing to put forth anything but the bare minimum effort to get by, and now they suffer the consequences.

The children of poor people, however, are entirely innocent. And there are a lot of them, since many poor people DO pop them out to get a larger welfare hand-out. Something needs to be done to save these children from their parent's malign influence and break the cycle, and I'd be willing to pay much (much) higher taxes to see these children taken away from their deadbeat parents at a young age and placed in a well-funded state-run home.

No, it just makes Ryan an young idiot, y'know full of spit n vinegar and full of himself because he thinks he's the only person in the whole world who dealt with suffering and loss in some speshul way.

I think one of his siblings praised him for dealing with his father's death in an untypical way. Hyper indepenence is exactly one of the typical ways of reacting to loss. A large portion of children might become self destructive, but his coping mechanism chances so much wider destruction.

I think it is quite clear by now that you are at best dyslexic parsing political sentiment.

I don't really care about spelling accuracy all the time. The difference being that I can run what I post through a spell checker, if I so desire, while the solution to your lack of reasoning skills cannot be fixed by same.

The problem here is that Mr Ryan wishes to enforce his radical policies - i.e. to dismantle the social security network provided by the US federal government - on the most vulnerable sectors of the American population, when he himself has benefited from that same social security network in the past.
By itself, that is morally utterly reprehensible. It gets even worse when we consider that the people he wishes to penalize in that way are for the most part NOT responsible for their difficult circumstances, but find themselves in dire straits because of Bush II-era Republican policies that differed from his current policy proposals in degree only.
Mr Ryan's political stance is immoral, callous & short-sighted.

"The problem here is that Mr Ryan wishes to enforce his radical policies - i.e. to dismantle the social security network provided by the US federal government - on the most vulnerable sectors of the American population, when he himself has benefited from that same social security network in the past."

Quite a few lies here.

Firstly, the Ryan plan does not affect any American under the age of 55.

So by allowing those who voted themselves unsustainable benefits in the first place to keep them, then sticking the next several generations of people with the bill, that proves your point how, exactly?

"The problem here is that Mr Ryan wishes to enforce his radical policies - i.e. to dismantle the social security network provided by the US federal government - on the most vulnerable sectors of the American population, when he himself has benefited from that same social security network in the past."

The fact that this doesn't affect anyone *over* 55 (what I'm assuming Brian meant to say) does NOT make that statement a lie.

Seriously. The guy is railing about how misleading "lefties" are and can't even get basic logic straight.

These were things that were debated by bearded philosophers at the end of the 19th century. It is proof of how backwards the USA of 2012 is, that these things are talked about, in the same sentence as gay rights and the origin of life in the Universe.
We all know that the USA is being taken over by corporations and that Americans are not considered citizens or human beings, but a pool of taxpayers and consumers to be exploited.
The justification of greed can take place by Ayn Rand or other writers, it does not matter. There has to be some attempt to market, to sell, the exploitation of the American people.

I will start taking left-wing accusations of Ryan's hypocrisy seriously as soon as they call Warren Buffett a hypocrite for paying less taxes than he preaches he should pay. You know what you call someone who bashes Republicans while giving Democrats a pass for the same thing? Rachael Maddow. But also "hypocrite."

Warren Buffett is a as hypocritcal as they come. He says he is this for the people democrat but in reality he only does that because he has soo much money himself and he can afford to be on the side of the common man. The real Warren Buffet is a take no prisoners cutthroat capitalist republican. He has manipulated the silver market mulitiple times with positions in silver in the billions as that market is easy to manipulate if your as big as a whale as Buffet. Both times he was caught and the sec did'nt do anything about it, they just asked him to close out his silver position, crashing the price of silver inthe process making people lose their shirt. The question you might ask yourself is why do people like Raj Ratnam go to jail for insider trading and a guy like Buffet (who manipulated silver with insiders helping him) not even get a fine or a slap on the wrist?

the idea that someone has to voluntarily pay taxes to advocate for higher taxes is asinine. If RR's point is to rebut one asinine point with another, I guess that makes sense, but the flaw in the entire premise should be pointed out.

However, Warren Buffet has committed to donate the bulk of his mega-fortune to the Gates Foundation, which isn't the same as paying taxes, but it is a charitable cause that works to make the world a better place, which is in a general sense the same reason he advocates that rich people should have to pay more taxes.

So if the test is whether he puts his money where his mouth is, he passes.

That was my point. I don't think Ryan and Buffett are hypocrites. But giving to private charities is not what clears him of hypocrisy, not least because he pledged to give upon his death not April 15th of every year. That's analogous to clearing Ryan of hypocrisy by saying that by refusing to cut government spending, he's actually practicing less government intervention. Buffett advocates leaving philanthropists with less money to donate to private charities.

Ugh RR. Buffet has been giving his money to Gates Foundation for years, and he's not dead, so your first claim is just factually wrong.

And the big picture is this: What clears Buffett of even a hint of the charge of hypocrisy is that while he's advocating other rich people give more money to benefit society at large, he's proven willing to do exactly that.

Also ... he's never advocated removing the exemption for charitable donation, which would leave philanthropists with less money, so that claim is wrong too.

Less after-tax income results in a lesser share of your income devoted to charitable giving even if the deduction isn't changed. How much would Buffett give to charity if he's taxed at 90%?

If it's proven that the 1% donate 20% of their income to charity, people have no reason to demand higher tax rates on the 1%? If failure to comply with one's ideal policies voluntarily is hypocritical (again, I don't believe it is), then Buffett can ONLY be cleared if he donates to the IRS. Otherwise, it'd equally hypocritical for Ryan to advocate lower taxes if he donates at all to charity.

Ok RR, you're amply demonstrating the problem with libertarians when they encounter the real world. They're great at understanding simple economic models, like how higher taxes will reduce charitable giving because they leave people with less income, but they overlook the details.

In this case, the details include how at the rates of taxation anyone is actually proposing (which is NOT 90% FYI), the marginal effect is small. Another big detail is how the relationship breaks down anyway for very high income people like Buffett, who are really no less rich if that have $50 billion in after tax income than $25 billion. You also forget that people actually like deducting, so when tax rates are higher, their actual behavior is to engage in more tax avoidance, which includes donating MORE.

The rest of what you're saying. .. I can't even sort out. I don't think Ryan is hypocritical at all for enjoying publicly funded education and survivor benefits and then advocating for them to be slashed. The stuff you say about Buffett ... I can't tell what kind of building that pile of sticks is supposed to be.

No. Although Warren Buffett promising his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is noble and good, it exactly represents his hypocrisy. By doing so, he pays no taxes to the federal government, under the basic assumption that a privately run organization can better serve the needs of the poor or needy then a government organization. If Warren Buffett truly believed that his income should be taxed at a higher rate and that the federal government has the responsibility and ability to redistribute wealth accordingly, then why is he avoiding billions in taxes?

The hypocrisy charge against Occupiers was based as their aroused worship of Apple products, as much as their pragmatic use of IT equipment as the available tools of their "struggle." Thus the criticism stands.

As much as I agree with some of their general sentiment (certainly not mandated caps on compensation), most Occupiers didn't strike me as too bright. Most especially upsetting was when they would go around smashing in small businesses windows...yeah, that'll show 'em!

Do you really think it's accurate to imply that "most" occupiers were involved in smashing windows? I don't think so.

The Occupiers were all over the place in terms of what they did and said. It was a very diverse bunch. A fair criticism would be that they had no coherent unifying proposals or plan. A not very fair criticism would be any that somehow generalizes about a group that had few if any generalizable characteristics.

Well I said "most" weren't too bright, not that most went and smashed windows, although perhaps it seemed to be implied. As you say, much of what they did and said was not unified nor coherent. Even that which was coherent wasn't matched by the actions they were taking.

One true characteristic that was objectively qualifiable though, is that they smell. This is from someone who worked downwind from one of their camps....

I am just tickled that he admits his political philosophy is no more evolved than an 18 year old girl. That seems to be the demographic that reads Rand. He is just trying to get laid. Leave the man alone.

He's a devout Catholic whose budgetis so damaging to social programs benefiting our poorest and most vulnerable citizens that it prompted the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to publicly blast him for not just tearing holes in the nation's safety but for his "shredding of the nation’s moral obligations."
He's an avid hunter and fisherman who would like to gut the EPA.
What should we call him?http://gigabiting.com/paul-ryan-definitely-not-a-foodie/

Throwing a cat into a fire does indeed rid the cat of fleas.
But Ryan isn't slashing the Boomer generation's benefits, they keep all that. Rather he's letting them run up the tab and having his generation take it in the rear.

So without the EPA as is, he would have no fish. And the only source of support for the poor, must come from the federal government. I think the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops just doesn't want to pick up the slack, they have gotten used to no longer being a charitable organization.